Share this

Fred Croft (guest)
CA:

Does anyone take this idea seriously? Republicans have a once-in-a-century opportunity to build market share and credibility - but it's an opportunity that requires them to re-brand, recruit independents (the non-forgotten "Reagan Democrats" anyone?), and build a result-oriented (not ideologically pure) promotional engine.

Palin's resume doesn't overwhelm anyone with her credibility in any of these areas. And that doesn't matter, since Palin is far too interested in driving the media agenda to ever consider such a "back room" position. Can we get to some real issues?

Michael Evans (guest)
MA:

Palin: I am not really a Sarah Palin fan, but the hypocrisy of some people is astounding. Greg Dworkin states: "The former half-term governor of Alaska doesn’t have administrative skills, organizational experience or any other job qualification for party chair.

Her last unfinished job was marred by investigations and scandals." Let's do some word substitution here: "The former half-term senator of Illinois doesn’t have administrative skills, organizational experience or any other job qualification for president. His last unfinished job was marred by investigations and scandals. "

What was good enough to be president according to some is not good enough to be chair of the RNC? I would argue Obama's lack of experience was even more astounding -- at least Palin governed. But not a peep from the mainstream media shills on this! You wonder why alternative media is so sucessful...

Frederick Forsythe (guest)
NC:

The basic problem with the mainstream media is that they are lazy. Political hacks of their own persuasion (95 percent Democratic Party) can so easily spoon feed the mainstream media and this is what gets reported, spin and all.

The only time the mainstream media shows any tenacity at all is when they are going after Republicans. Fifty years from now, if there are any honest historians left in America, they will write about this era when the media became advocates for our nation's first black president and abandoned all journalistic integrity.

Laura Halvorsen (guest)
FL:

Having lived in England in 2005 and 2006, during an election season, I can say without a doubt that the American media is entirely too easy on politicians. Not only do they ask softball questions (if not planted questions) but they virtually never challenge the answers.

Not so in the UK, where the media ask blunt, pointed questions and rarely let politicians get away with talking point answers. And while no one would argue that the BBC leans left and Sky News leans right, there's little in the way of water carrying or blatant sucking up, as you so often see here.

Additionally, the American media has increasingly moved away from fact-based journalism and immersed itself almost entirely in opinion journalism (despite their vehement and pathetic attempts to deny the obvious). What I wouldn't give to see President Obama on 60 Minutes being interviewed by Nick Robinson or Laura Kuenssberg!

Keith Platt (guest)
NJ:

This is an interesting question. In fact, I thought of this myself earlier this year, but it was in pondering whether Sarah Palin should run for president. I think, for her, it would be a good move if she does harbor presidential ambitions.

As an admitted Palin fan, she has little to no chance of being elected president in 2012. Not because she's not qualified (Obama wasn't qualified either), but because the media did such a hatchet job on her (and continues to do so) that it would be difficult for her, at this point, to counteract the opinion of her held by many.

If she wants to be president, she needs to start rehabbing her image by performing well in a high profile job, like party chair. She'd be good at it. She can rev up a crowd, raise money and act as a party spokesperson until the nominee is named in 2012. After a successful stint as GOP chair, then she runs against Sen. Knowles in the AK Senate race in 2014, lining her up for either 2016 or 2020 (when she'll be 59). By then, Sarah Palin would have a long, distinguished record of public service, people would be used to her, she would have built up party loyalty and, most likely, cruise to the nomination, almost uncontested.

Jan Yeap (guest)
DC:

Oh yes, replace Steele with the "Drill, Baby, Drill" Palin. She might even shove all Republican candidates in the background to put RNC into the headlines! Conservative Republicans are pretty boring to observe, so why not have the ex-beauty queen put some spark into the dullards.

It would certainly be fun to watch Palin bossing around the Republicans. However, don't expect her to be organized or keep silent, or even expect her to finish her term, if work becomes too overwhelming for her. Yes, be warned, do expect her family troupe to be part of the hustle-bustle of the RNC.

bruce brown (guest)
VA:

This is a stupid question - There is a better chance that Bill Clinton wiill be the next RNC chair than Palin! First, she knows nothing about the mechanics of running a party.

Second, she would have to give up whatever ambition she might have about running in 2012, and finally, she would have to endorse/support libera/lmoderate Republicans who believe in things that she is on the record as opposing (e.g., choice, gun control, defense spending cuts).

Sarah Anklerton (guest)
NJ:

I agree with Jill Cerino. I'd be happy if we never saw or heard from Palin in the media again. She brings nothing but ignorant, mean-spirited partisanship and simplistic thinking to the table.

She has no ideas, no knowledge, no proposals and no substance (if she had any, she would have offered some by now). All she has is rhetoric and attacking one-liners.

I would love to see some really genuine serious thinkers (like Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin) rise up on the right and take their party back from the likes of Palin so Republicans and Democrats could come together to tackle the very serious and complex problems that face us. Palin is just the wrong person to have as a leader of anything at this critical time.

Steven Best (guest)
OH:

Jill -- Laura was quite clear in her comments, you on the other hand offered nothing with your comment.

Todd Bray (guest)
CA:

Should Palin replace Steele as RNC chair? Okay Mr. Mark, now you are just messing with us. Sarah could also replace Larry David on Curb Your Enthusiasm. Either one is much too sweet to ever happen but boy would it be cool if the Palinator took over the RNC.

Courtney H (guest)
MA:

Laura Halvorsen is right on. I don't personally know any Republicans who have even given a second thought to Palin becoming chair of the RNC.

The question appears to be posed solely with the purpose of giving the Arena's liberal commentators opportunities to take potshots at Sarah. Hope it was enjoyable for them; it certainly wasn't original or enlightening for the rest of us. As for the answer to the question that should have been asked, which is simply "Who should replace Steele?", I agree with Cesar Conda. I think Rove's intelligence and political savvy is desperately needed at the top of the Republican Party headed into the November elections.

Michael Vogler (guest)
VA:

And POLITICO throws out some red meat this morning.... and the Democrat elites pounce! Anything I presume, even for just a moment, to distract them from the mess that their party has made in this country.

The Democrats had all the power in the country. They have the White House, they have the House and they had the Senate ... now look at em, reduced to yucking it up about Michael Steele, who Cynthia Tucker, this past Sunday morning, called the affirmative action chairman!

Can you imagine a Republican saying that about someone in the Democrat ranks? Can you imagine if John Ashcroft had ordered his Department of Justice not to prosecute a clans member for voter intimidation at some polling station during the 2004 election? The outrage there would be in the mainstream media!! The double standard! Just look at the Democrat elites, searching for anything to bad mouth, trying to take the attention off their own miserable track record.

Charles Hardage (guest)
TX:

Most conservatives find it amusing to read comments from liberals such as, "...the prospect of Sarah Palin leading the RNC makes me giddy." The fear in their collective tone is palpable.

I hope the RNC calls the bluff of the naysayers. Frankly, Steele has been a disaster and needs to go. Sarah Palin would galvanize the RNC (and most of the country) like no other, and folks like me would re-open their pocket books to the RNC.

The only people who wouldn't be on board, of course, are the snarky little journalism majors and their small number of readers (probably 20 percent of the country). I haven't given a dime to the RNC since the Steele chairmanship. Sarah scares socialists, so she must be doing everything right -- no pun intended. Go Sarah! Pay no attention to the jaw boners in this echo chamber. I love the smell of fear in the morning. It smells like, like victory!

Joe Kerbasan (guest)
NC:

What has happened to the Arena? While the usual partisans have long been predictable, the Arena used to be a serious place to discuss serious questions. Now, it's more like a political TMZ.

Jill Cerino (guest)
NY:

Kiki - let's be clear that niether war would have happened without the full-throated support of congressional and Senate Democrats. Most Democrats in the country supported both wars when they started as well, shall we cue the polls?

Let's not confuse media blather with facts. Bush could have done nothing without the support of Democrats for these wars. I'm a Democrat and supported both, still do. What exactly is your position on either of these wars as they stand now?

Rather than trying to score poltical points with tired retreading of the past, how about telling us what you would do differently rather than hiding behind more meaningless victimology. My friends across the aisle, I say this with great respect: get in this boat and help - start rowing and stop whining or get out.

Tony Westover (guest)
MA:

The mere mention of Sarah Palin is only meant to increase the spew of vitriol towards a major threat to the Democrats. Look no further than hate blog contributor Greg Dworkin's ramblings, it's a perfect example.

How about you take a poll to figure out who should chair the RNC, Greg? In reality, Sarah Palin would have no interest in chairing the RNC. She's proof that central party authority is rapidly deteriorating, and she's much more powerful is she stays out of the sausage factory.

From an image perspective, she's built herself up by being anti-establishment. If she all of the sudden became the establishment, her support would drop.

Jill Cerino (guest)
NY:

Laura - more "poor me" isms. Any concrete ideas on anything rather than tired right wing vicitimology?

Lee O (guest)
CA:

To go from a kingmaker to a glorified desk job would be a step down for Sarah Palin. She's far more effective campaigning for conservative candidates in tough races.

Daniel Shay (guest)
PA:

Slow news day, huh? How about discussing, oh, I don't know, CBO's estimate that the climate bill could generate up to $19B? What about a discussion on the current state of U.S.-Israeli ties and Israel's indication that it will take a somewhat softer approach to try to entice Mahmoud Abbas to the discussion table?

Or perhaps a discussion of the revival of "cold war" politics with the "spy swap" if you want a sexier story? We have all these experts assembled here, but we spend our time talking about what amounts to little more than schoolyard gossip and silly hypotheticals which aren't even a remote possibility? Come on guys, you can do better than a goofy topic like this. Let's have a serious discussion about a serious topic.

A Moran (guest)
MA:

Who thought up this question? I bet Palin doesn't want it, nor should she. The fact the left would like it is reason enough not to.

I find it funny how Mr. Dworkin mentions a lack of executive experience, something the current president had even less of than Ms. Palin, and shows this executive inexperience (dare I say incompetence?) on a daily basis (see oil spill, Afghanistan, not addressing economic issues). I mean I laughed, really. How about some real question about the issues over Congress, the administration?

Jill Cerino (guest)
NY:

I am an American citizen before I am a member of a political party, so I am opposed to giving Palin this platform. Although it might temporarily benefit the Democrats, it would ultimately further degrade our politicial culture (if that is possible).

She brings out the very worst in everyone in both parties. We need leaders in any position (even one as necessarily partisan as this one) who bring out the best in us and provide hope through real knowledge and realistic, concrete ideas for addressing our many urgent problems. This is not Palin in any sense. A clash of ideas is healthy for democracy and I welcome it. More mean-spirited attacks and lack of real information to make informed choices between the parties are not.

Kiki Connors (guest)
ME:

Pejman Yousefzadeh wrote in his comment....."She is not the skilled mechanic the party needs in the chair; indeed, one wonders whether she has ever looked under the hood of anything.

She is, at best, an appealing symbol for some, but just because Palin can give good speeches and impress crowds with her charisma, that does not mean that she would be a good chairperson for the Republican Party."

I agree with his assessment of Sarah Palin but there was something strangely familiar about his evaluation and here it is: the name has been changed to make a similar comparison.

"HE" is not the skilled mechanic the party needs in the OVAL OFFICE; indeed, one wonders whether he has ever looked under the hood of anything. HE is, at best, an appealing symbol for some, but just because OBAMA can give good speeches and impress crowds with his charisma, that does not mean that HE would be a good leader for the Democratic Party.

Laura Halvorsen (guest)
FL:

Sometimes I think The Arena asks questions like this simply to give Greg Dworkin and other liberal Arena posters an opportunity to take out their frustration with their own party on some hapless Republican. Yesterday it was Michael Steele. Today it's Sarah Palin. Why not go for the trifecta tomorrow and ask if Dick Cheney should run in 2012?

I should imagine it becomes rather exhausting having to constantly defend the current administration and Democrat-controlled Congress, so an opportunity to belittle Sarah Palin must come as a welcome reprieve.

I'm no Sarah Palin fan myself, but the reaction that Democrats have to Sarah Palin is borderline sociopathic. While I don't particularly care for her style, I nevertheless don't feel the need to call her stupid. Clearly, she is not stupid. Her only crime is that she is a conservative which, to liberals like Mr. Dworkin, is synonymous with "stupid" (as is all non-liberal thought).

I am amused, however, that he pointed out she has no experience with which to be the RNC chair - as if that automatically excludes her. Ironically, Mr. Dworkin had no such qualms about lack of experience when it comes to President Obama. Interesting and yet boring all at the same time.

MIchael Fidanza (guest)
NJ:

It doesn't take more than five seconds of pondering on this question: the answer is simply no. While Sarah Palin is a walking lightning rod and is able to garner six- and seven-digit appearances with regularity, the head of the RNC -- and the DNC, for that matter -- should be doing more work behind the scenes than in front of the camera.

Both committees have flourished under the leadership of chairs like Lee Atwater, Terry McAuliffe, Ed Gillespie and Ed Rendell. A once-promising Michael Steele is following in the footsteps of the Democrats' Howard Dean. Both may have seemed to be good choices at the time, but after dozens of gaffes and strategic errors, their leadership is in question.

If Steele stuck to the core issues, raised a ton of cash and avoided the celebrity circuit like the plague, we would not be debating this today. As for Palin, unless she really wanted the job, I'd pass and look for a good operational person with a warming personality. Party unity and fundraising the two top responsibilities of the chair.

Kiki Connors (guest)
ME:

Michael Steele should not be replaced. I am a Republican and conservative. Michael Steele is doing a good job ... I approve of him. Michael Steele is correct when he stated Afghanistan is Obama's war.

During the campaign, Obama said Bush's Iraq was the "wrong" war and Afghanistan was the "right " war. He and the Democrats were in a constant crusade to concentrate on Afghanistan. They also used to howl that Iraq didn't attack us on Sept. 11. Afghanistan didn't attack us on Sept. 11 either. The U.S. military deaths have doubled in Afghanistan since Obama took office. Yes, this is Obama's war. Michael Steele is correct and doesn't owe an apology to anyone.

More POLITICO Arena

About the Arena

The Arena is a cross-party, cross-discipline forum for intelligent and lively conversation about political and policy issues. Contributors have been selected by POLITICO staff and editors. David Mark, Arena's moderator, is a Senior Editor at POLITICO. Each morning, POLITICO sends a question based on that day's news to all contributors.